CREATING A TRAINING MANUAL FOR IMPLEMENTING LGBT PROGRAMS &
INITIATIVTES AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES
A CREATIVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTERS OF ARTS
IN
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
BY
BRANDON M. HILDRETH
AMANDA O. LATZ Ed.D. - ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2012
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE……………………………………………………………………………………...i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………ii
CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………..1
Statement of Purpose………………………………………….…………………..2
Significance of Study……………………………………………………………...2
Scope of Limitation…………………………………………………………..……3
Organization of Paper……………………………………..………………………3
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review…………………………………………..…………4
Summary of the Project…………………………………………………….……..4
Historically Black Colleges and Universities………………………………….….4
History………………………………………………………………..……5
Christian Underpinnings………………………………………………..…9
Contemporary Issues………………………………………………….….10
Financial Issues…………………………………………………..10
Defending HBCUs from Critics………….......………………….11
LGBT Issues……………………………………………………..11
Understanding LGBT Student through Identity Development Theories………13
Multiple Dimensions of Identity Theory…………………………...……13
Reynolds and Pope’s Multiple Identity Model…………..………14
Jones and McEwen’s Multiple Dimensions of Identity Model.....15
The core………………………………………………….16
Intersecting circles of identity…………………………....16
iii
Relative salience…………………………………………………17
Sexual Identity Theory…………………………………………..……….18
Stage One: Identity Confusion…………………………………..18
Stage Two: Identity Comparison……………………………...…18
Stage Three: Identity Tolerance………………………………….18
Stage Four: Identity Acceptance…………………………………19
Stage Five: Identity Pride………………………………………...19
Stage Six: Identity Synthesis………………………………….…19
Racial Identity Theory…………………………………………….……..19
Stage One: Pre-Encounter…………………….………………….21
Stage Two: Encounter……………………….…..……………….21
Stage Three: Emersion-Immersion………………………………21
Stage Four: Internalization……………………………………….22
LGBT Training Manuals for Colleges & Universities……………………….….22
Identity Development……………………………………………….…....23
Homophobia………………………………………………………….…..23
Issues in the Classroom……………………………………………..……23
Campus and Community Resources…………………….……………….24
Glossary of LGBT Language and Symbols………………...……………24
Summary…………………………………………………………………24
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………….…………….25
Statement of Purpose…………………………………………………………….25
Methodology……………………………………………………………………..25
iv
Design of Project……………………………………………………...………….26
Summary………………………………………………………………………....28
CHAPTER FOUR: CREATING A TRAINING MANUAL FOR IMPLEMENT LGBT
PROGRAMS & INATIVTES AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES &
UNIVERSITIES………………………………………………………………………....39
Section One…………………………………………………...………………….30
Section Two………………………………………………………………...……37
Section Three……………………………………………………………..…….. 43
Section Four……………………………………………………………….……..46
Section Five…………………………………………………………………...…51
Section Six…………………………………………………………………….....58
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..………61
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
For centuries, HBCUs have continuously provided educational opportunities for
students, especially African Americans, seeking higher education (Redd, 1998).
Although, these institutions share some of the same services, curricular, and programs as
other colleges and universities in the United States; it is often perceived that HBCUs
substantially lack programs, services, and initiatives for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) students. Many researchers believe that this perception is because
of institutional homophobia. Therefore, most of these institutions are perceived to
promote heterosexuality by their implementation of policies; which lacks the
consideration of LGBT students. Many national media headlines suggest that HBCUs are
reluctant and ill-equipped to handle concerns of LGBT students.
Despite the negative stigmas associated with HBCU’s effectiveness to addressing
LGBT issues, a small number of HBCUs have made some effort to ensure inclusion for
LGBT students. Many of the today’s college and universities have LGBT initiatives that
date back to the late 1960s and 1970s; whereas, many of the LGBT initiatives at HBCUs
started as early as the 2000s.
This creative project is focused on the creation and formation of a training manual
that would assist HBCUs in implementing programs and initiatives for LGBT students.
The training manual will highlight some of today’s current programs and initiatives at
2
peer institutions; while providing HBCUs a recommended approach to implementing
these programs and initiatives based on their unique campus culture and climate.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this creative project is to craft a literary resource that HBCUs can
use to assist in creating initiatives and programs for LGBT students. There is very
limited to no research on the topic of LGBT program and initiatives at HBCUS. Most indepth qualitative literature focuses primarily homosexuality within African American
males attending HBCUs, but exclude lesbian, bisexuals, and transgender students. In
addition, HBCUs have made national headlines in regards to their lack of abilities to
proper handle LGBT concerns. Therefore, a training manual would be very beneficial for
implementing LGBT programs and initiatives at HBCUs. A training manual will provide
a consortium of information to educate HBCU administrators, faculty, staff, and students
while providing them with essential tools to creating a safe campus environment,
inclusion, sensitivity among the campus community, and an understanding of the sexual
identity process of LBGT students.
Significance of the Study
Although HBCUs play a very instrumental role in the higher education
community, many of these institutions are some of the least progressive in regards to
providing adequate programs and initiatives for LGBT students. There are several
factors that contribute to the institutional cultures associated with the perceived negative
relationship between HBCUs and LGBT students; however, a manual on how to effective
train student, faculty and administrators will assist in alleviating many of these common
problems. This literary resource will not only fulfill the objectives outlined in the
3
purpose, but will also assist these institutions in removing the negative stigmas associated
with HBCUs and LGBT issues.
Scopes and Limitations
The training manual is designed to be beneficial for students, faculty, and
administrators of HBCUs. Because HBCUs range in size, structure, cultures, campus
climates and financial needs; the training manual is written from a general perspective.
It is imperative that HBCUs are fully aware of institutional factors associated with
their respective institutions; since many of the recommendations presented in the training
manual may not be suitable for every institution.
In addition, the training manual is based solely on training manuals that are
produce for traditional American colleges and universities with adaptations for HBCUs;
therefore, most of the programs and initiatives highlighted in the manual are considered
successful programs and initiatives at traditional American institutions, not HBCUs.
Organization of the Paper
This creative project is organized in four chapters. The second chapter consists of
an extensive literature review on HBCUs, LGBT student identity development theories,
and LGBT training manuals. The third chapter consists of the methodology utilized in
the construction of the creative project. The fourth chapter showcases the training manual
and in its entirety.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Summary of the Project
There is an abundance of useful resources that assist post secondary institutions in
creating programs and initiatives for LGBT students; however, HBCUs have been less
progressive in creating these services for LGBT students due to lack of training and
resources (Patton, 2011; Young, 2011). Many of today’s training manuals utilized and
created for institution regarding LGBT students and issues consist of topics which
explore: LGBT identity development, academic and institution climate, faculty and
student relationships, campus and community resources, and explanations of commonly
used terms and symbols in the LGBT community (Hothem & Keene, 1998). The training
manual will be design specifically for HBCUs and some of the cultural and social issues
associated with these specific institutions.
Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs)
For centuries, HBCUs have been pioneers for providing educational opportunities
for African Americans seeking higher education (Redd, 1998). Section 322 of Title III of
the Black College and University Act defines historically Black colleges and universities
as historically Black institutions that existed before 1964 with a historic mission of
providing education for African Americans as well as being open to all (Davis II &
Brown, 2001; Redd; Roebuck & Murty, 1993, Sims, 1994). Since the 1800s, these
5
institutions continue to grow despite its strong history of discrimination from state and
federal government. There are currently 103 public, private, four-year, and two-year
HBCUs in the United States (Bonner 2001, Davis, II., & Brown, 2001; Gasman, Baez,
Drezner, Sedgwick, Tudico, & Schmid., 2007;Hirt, 2006). HBCUs are located in 14
southern states, three northern state, three midwestern states, the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Island (Roebuck & Murty). Historically, HBCUs’ mission has been to
provide educational opportunities for low-income and students with low academic
preparation regardless of race, ethnicity, or income. Many of today’s HBCUs are
comprehensive, liberal, and religiously affiliated institution with very few research
institutions; therefore, HBCUs collectively “cannot be conceptualized within the
traditional higher education hierarchy in American (Hurt, p109). Many experts argue that
HBCUs need to be placed in their own distinct classification system within the higher
education community. Despite many of the current hardships of HBCUs such as lack of
funding and low enrollments, these institutions still strive to provide educational
opportunities for all types of students. Although, many critics challenge the relevance of
HBCUs because of the high percentage of African American students attending
predominately White institutions (PWIs); however, these institutions will continue to be a
major contributors to the academic success of all students.
History
The history of HBCUs can be traced to the early 1800s during the pre-Civil War
era. The first three HBCUs: the Institute for Colored Youth (renamed to Cheyenne
University), Lincoln University, and Wilberforce University, were founded by White
philanthropist with the intention to provide religious education and basic training for
6
African-Americans (Bond, 1976; Redd, 1998). These institutions experienced limited
educational success since many African Americans were enslaved during this era.
In the 1860s, the Emancipation Proclamation freed approximately four million
slaves in the United States; however, Blacks, with very few exceptions, were restricted
from obtaining a college degree (Roebuck & Murty, 1993; Sims, 1994; Thompson,
1973). During the period of 1865 to1873 many of the most prestigious HBCUs were
founded, with some of the first HBCU being private institutions. The Freedman’s Bureau
bill of 1865, which mandated all abandoned and confiscated land within the southern
states to be allocated between every male freed slave and refugee, assisted the
establishments of many HBCUs (Cox, 1958, Roebuck & Murty; Redd 1998). These
institutions such as: Howard University, Atlanta University (currently known as Clark
Atlanta University), St. Augustine College, Fisk University, and Johnston C. Smith
University, were all established because of the Freedman’s Bureau. Two other federal
laws, the National Land Grant Act of 1862 (also known as the First Morrill Act) and
Second Morrill Act of 1890, also help to establish HBCUs (Davis, 1933; Redd). Many
institutions that were established by funds authorized by the First Morrill Act were
exclusively for White institutions; however, the Second Morrill Act mandated that all
states that had dual segregated higher education systems for Whites and African
Americans must provide a land-grant institution specifically for African Americans.
Institutions that were established under the Morrill’s Acts include: Alcorn Agricultural
and Mechanical College (currently known as Alcorn State University), North Carolina
Agricultural and Mechanical State University, and University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
The Second Morrill Act was the initial practice of “separate but equal” within an
7
educational system, which would later be legalized through the U.S Supreme Court’s
decision in the 1986 case of Plessy v. Ferguson (Roebuck & Murty). Towards the end of
the nineteenth century, most HBCUs did not confer degrees; however, they taught
religious education, manual trade, and social skills (Redd).
In the early twentieth century, most HBCUs were considered “normal” schools
for the African Americans that provided training in public elementary and secondary
education (Redd, 1998). These institutions provided education for nearly all of the
African American teachers in the United States. Although, the Second Morrill Act
provided financial support for HBCUs, most of these institutions had limited financial
resources. Many HBCUs received addition funding from organized philanthropy such as:
Black churches, religious groups, and White philanthropist (Redd; Roebuck & Murty,
1993). One of the largest contributors to the financial sustainability of HBCUs was funds
generated by the General Education Board founded by John D. Rockefeller. From 1902
to 1960, the General Education Board contributed $63 million to African-Americans and
HBCUs until the 1960s.
The 1950s and 1960s, brought major changes to HBCUs, both positively and
negatively. One of the major historical landmark cases that impacted HBCUs was the
Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954 and 1955
(Redd, 1998). This decision declared the principle of “separate but equal” within public
schools unconstitutional; therefore, making it unlawful for public institutions to
discriminate against students based on race (Jones & Hancock, 2005; Reed; Roebuck &
Murty, 1993; Zirkel & Cantor, 2004). Before this monumental case, HBCUs had
experienced an increase in student enrollment since African Americans were denied
8
access to predominately White institutions (PWIs). As a result of the case, enrollment at
HBCUs declined because many African Americans were enrolling into PWIs. By the
1968, only 36% attended of African Americans attended HBCUs (Redd). Due to low
enrollment and low finances, many HBCUs closed or merged with other institutions to
continue to exist.
It was not until the 1980s and 1990s, when enrollment increased at HBCUs
(Redd, 1998). One of the contributing factors to the rise of student enrollment is because
of an increase in federal support for HBCUs. In 1986, Congress passed a new program,
the Historically Black College Act, which was a part of the Title III of the Higher
Education Act (Redd, 1998; Roebuck & Murty, 1993). The Historically Black College
Act “authorized a $100 million dollars exclusively for historically Black colleges. Under
this act, Congress approved $50.7 million in the 1987 fiscal year, with at least $350,000
going to each eligible historically Black college” (Roebuck & Murty, p. 48). In 1991, the
Bush administration implemented a controversial plan that would reformate how HBCUs
receive funds from federal agencies. Within this plan, HBCUs would be divided into
categories that would differentiate them by programs and institutional missions. This
plan would allow federal agencies to fund specific HBCU programs that closely related
to the agencies’ need. Many HBCUs president were in opposition to this initiative with
beliefs that federal agencies would only fund subsets within HBCUs that were already
heavily funded. Bush’s plan to focus on subset would allow federal agencies to over look
suffering institutions. Many presidents feared that this would create a caste-system
among HBCUs and would allow federal agencies funding to “make rich HBCUs richer
and poor institutions poorer” (Roebuck & Murty, p. 49).
9
As HBCUs thrive through the 21st century, some of the contemporary issues
regarding these institutions will be addressed later in the literature.
Christian Underpinnings
Many of today’s HBCUs were founded by Baptist, African Methodist Episcopal,
Christian Methodist Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal Church
organizations (Challenor, 2002). Xavier University is the only HBCU that was founded
based on Catholic principles.
In the 1800s, the first religious group that assisted in formulating formal
system of schools and colleges for Blacks was the Northern missionary groups (Roebuck
& Murty, 1993). The Northern missionary groups sent missionaries to southern states to
provide materials and assistance to freed slaves. In addition, many of these groups
provided education and religion to freed slaves and their children. In 1861, the American
Missionary Association (AMA) assisted in establishing several Black colleges and
normal schools. During the era of 1865 to 1890s, northern missionaries groups and
church assisted in establishing 200 Black private institutions in the South.
Many of these HBCUS were staffed primarily by White missionaries. Most
taught freed slaves how to read and trained them to become clergymen. By the 1870s,
the main three contributors to funding HBCUs were: AMA, the Freedman’s Bureau, and
Black churches (Roebuck & Murty, 1993). As a result of heavy contributions from
northern missionaries and Black church, many of the HBCUs focused primarily on
teaching and religious education. The Black church groups that financially supported
HBCUs were the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the African Methodist
10
Episcopal Church of Zion. Black churches based their contributions on institutions that
shared their Christian values.
Although, these institutions have transitioned into more secular institution, some
of these institutions continue to maintain their strong affiliations to their respective
church sponsors (Challenor, 2002; Roebuck & Murty, 1998).
Contemporary Issues
For centuries, HBCUs have persevered throughout hardship since their
establishments in the nineteenth century. Despite the institution size and lack of
resources, HBCUs account for 28% of bachelor degrees conferred by African Americans
in the United States (Reed, 1998). In addition, HBCUs have lower percentages of college
drop-out rates compared to PWIs. These institutions have made exceptional strives to
become some of the leading institutions for educating all students; however, there are
new issues that have arisen at these institutions.
Financial issues. Since their early establishment, HBCUs have struggled with
operating with limited financial resources. Although, many HBCUs receive high revenue
from enrollment, these figures mask that many institutions are operating with major
deficiencies. There are several factors that contribute to their financial crisis such as
tuition and endowments (Gasman, 2009). Approximately 90% of students attending both
public and private HBCUs receive federal financial aid. In addition, HBCUs have
tuitions cost which are 50% lower than historic White institutions. Another contributing
factor for HBCUs financial crisis is their endowments, which are substantially lower than
PWIs. Historically, these institutions have received lower funding from federal and state
governments, corporations, and other agencies compared to other PWIs. Over the years
11
the financial crisis has been so severe that many HBCU leaders have been forced to make
crucial decision to sustain their institution. The number of HBCUs has dropped
drastically over the years due to the financial state of these institutions.
Defending HBCUs against the critics. Although, HBCUs have continuously
provided exceptional education for all demographic of students, however, critics are
questioning their relevance. According to many national college ranking publications,
HBCUs rankings are much lower than PWI. The low ranking given to HBCUs is
generally related to their low endowments in comparison to other PWIs (Curtin &
Gasman, 2004; Gasman & Nelson, 2011) In many cases, today’s media negatively
portray HBCUs by misleading the public by exacerbating issues within these institutions.
In the September 2010, the co-editor and member of the editorial board for the Wall
Street Journal, Jamie Riley, published an article highly criticizing HBCUs entitled,
“Black Colleges Need a New Mission.” Many educational researchers and leaders
challenged his article because many felt that he compared HBCUs to Ivy League
institutions with larger endowments and based many of his arguments on out dated
statistics (Gasman & Nelson). This article was received nationally as a poor reflection on
the current state of HBCUs. Many of the scrutiny and false claims by the media are due
to the limited to no research published on HBCUs (Curtin & Gasman; Gasman &
Nelson).
LGBT issues. Many of today’s American’s post-secondary institutions are on the
forefront for providing equality and resources for the increase in LGBT students;
however, there is a strong perception that HBCUs are making limited advancements for
LGBT students (Patton, 2011; Young, 2011). Many researchers believe this perception is
12
due to institutional homophobia present at HBCUs. Therefore, many HBCUs are
believed to promote heterosexuality and implement policies without the consideration of
their affects on LGBT students and the community. Many media headlines suggest that
HBCUs are reluctant and ill-equipped to handle concerns of LGBT students. The most
noted all-male HBCU, Morehouse College, has received heavy media coverage for its
reluctant to identify and address its issues regarding its gay community. In 2002, a
Morehouse College student was severely beaten with a bat for the assumption of making
sexual advances towards another student. Although, this crime made media headlines
across the United States, little was done to address the concerns of gay students at the
institution. In 2009, Morehouse College made national headlines again for its adopted
“Appropriate Attire Policy” which banned male students from wearing dresses, make-up,
high-heels, and purses (Mungin, 2009). The “Appropriate Attire Policy” brought forth
major concerns regarding freedom of expression and whether the institution was
implementing policies to restrict cross-dressing among five Morehouse students.
Another HBCU, Hampton University, was accused of discriminating against the LBGT
student organization, SPEAK. The university refused to recognize the organization twice
without giving the students sufficient information to the institution’s refusal (Patton).
Patton also expressed that if these incidents continue to appear at these institutions it may
“suggest that HBCUs consciously work to prevent the establishment of LGBT oriented
organization that students in these environments may keep their sexual identity secret in
order to obtain their education (p. 77).
13
Understanding LGBT Students of Color through Identity Developmental Theories
Throughout history, researchers have defined and conceptualized the various
identities within individuals. Identity can be defined as “the sense of self that emerges
from the interaction between the individual and social experience” (Rhoads, 1994, p. 12).
Identity formation is considered a vital part of individual’s development and psychosocial
well-being (Erikson, 1980; Smith & Silva, 2011). The identity formation process can be
challenging for many individuals, especially persons who identify within the LGBT
community. Therefore, the process of identity formation can be more complex for
individuals of other racial groups (Porter, 1998); “lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons of
African descent continue to face the question ‘Who are you first?’ and ‘Are you Black
first or gay first?” (Washington & Wall, 2006, p. 179). These conflicting identities could
cause major identity confusion within LGBT student of color (Patton, 2011).
Researchers have examined the experience of LGBT college students; however, most of
today’s literature do not examines LBGT students of color, especially attending HBCUs.
Most researchers that examine LBGT students of colors, base their identity development
on theories such as: Jones and McEwen’s Multiple Dimension theory and Cass’ Sexual
Identity theory (Patton, 2011; Washington & Wall; Wall & Washington, 1991). Racial
identity also plays a major role in how LGBT students of color defined their identity.
These identity developmental theories can assist in understanding the identity
configuration of LGBT students of color.
Multiple Dimension of Identity Theory
There has been an increase in literature in regards to how social constructs
contribute to developing identity. Previously, many theorist and literature only focused
14
on one-dimension of identity development; therefore, many rarely acknowledged or
examine the multiple dimensions within individuals (Jones, & McEwen, 2000; Reynolds
& Pope, 1991). Researchers are increasing exploring how identity dimension such as
race, culture, social class, social orientation, and other socio-cultural and socio-political
factors influence how individuals construct identity (Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994).
Most of the today’s literature reference to the multiple identity dimension model
(2002) created by Susan R. Jones and Marylu K. McEwen (Abes, Jones, & McEwen,
2000). Jones and McEwen created their historical multiple-dimension framework model
based on the previous
Reynolds and Pope’s multiple identity model. Reynolds and Pope’s (1991)
multiple identity model is primarily based on the idea of multiple oppressions, which was
developed through case studies. The term oppression is defined as “a system that allows
access to the services, rewards, benefits, and privileges of society based on membership
in a particular group (p. 174). The term multiple oppression is when an individual is a
member of two or more oppressed groups. For example, a Black female who is a lesbian
is a member of three oppressed groups. These theorists used multiple oppressions as a
lens to explore several case studies to determine how expressions reflected complexities
within cultural diversity.
Reynolds and Pope’s Multiple Identity Model (Figure 1) proposed four ways that
individuals deal with oppression within multiple identities:
1. Identifying with one aspect of self that is socially assigned (e.g., gender or race).
This option is considered a passive approach, because one’s identity is
15
constructed based on the influences such as: society, community, family and other
external factors. This may cause individuals to suppress one aspect within them
to feel more accepted within various social structures.
2. Identifying with one aspect of self which is determined by the individual (e.g.,
sexual orientation). This option describes an individual identifying with one
aspect without including other oppressed identities.
3. Identifying with multiple aspects of self, which is expressed in a segmented
fashion This option is also a passive approach, because individuals may shift
between one aspects and another depending on time. For example, in one setting
an individual may identify as Black, and in another may identify as being a
lesbian. This option allows the individual embrace all aspects of one’s identity
while living in separate or unconnected worlds.
4. Identifying with the combined self. This option expresses the identity resolution
between the individual and their multiple dimensions. The identity resolution
causes individual to able to intersect the various multiple dimensions within their
identity.
Identify with one aspect of
self
identify with one aspect of
self
(conscious identification)
(society assigned passive
acceptance) Reynold's & Pope's
Multiple
Dimensional Model
Identify with multiple
aspects of self in a
segmented fashion
Identify with combined
aspect of self
(identity interection)
Figure 1. Model of Multidimensional Identity. Adapted from Reynolds and Pope (1991).
16
Jones and McEwen’s multiple dimensions of identity model. The Jones and
McEwen’s Multiple Dimension Models use a different approach to understanding the
multiple identities than Reynolds and Pope’s model. McEwen used her physics and
mathematics background to develop a model that conceptualizes the developmental
processes regarding multiple identities (Jones, & McEwen, 2000). The model is based on
conical structure with varying radii and height to represent the interactions and
intersection of multiple identity development within individuals. Each individual’s
length and circumference is different; therefore, increasing lengths and circumference
represents a greater complexity within an individual. The length and circumference is
heavily influenced by factors such as: age, experiences, education, and reflection change.
The two dimensional cross section within the conical structure represents the
development of the individual at the particular time. These dimensions intersect to
display that dimension cannot be understood from a singular dimension.
The Jones and McEwen’s Multiple Dimensions of Identity Model (Figure 2) have
several instrumental parts which explain how the influence of changing contexts creates
an ongoing process of identity construction:
The core. The center of the model represents the core-identity of the individual,
which represent the “valued personal attributes and characteristics” (Jones & McEwen,
2002, p. 408). The core of the structure is an instrumental aspect of the model because it
represents the individual’s inner-identity. Most times external dimensions such as:
gender, race, culture, and religion are integrally connected to the core.
Intersecting circles of identity. According to Jones and McEwen (2000), “the
intersecting circles of identity in the model represent the significant identity dimensions
17
and contextual influences (p. 408). The various identity dimensions and contextual
influences include: race, culture, sexual orientation, social class, religion, and gender.
The circles interact with one another other represents Jones and McEwen’s concept that
no one dimension may be understood singularly.
Relative salience. The relative salience of the various identity dimensions is
“indicated by dots located on each of the identity dimension circles. The location of the
dot and its proximity to the core represents the particular salience of that identity
dimension (Jones & McEwen, 2000, p. 410). For example, if an individual is particularly
salient with their gender at that particular time, the dot on the identity dimension would
be located closer towards the core. In contrast, if an individual is not particularly salient
with their sexual orientation at the time, the dot on the identity dimension would be
located farther away from the core.
Sexual Orientation
Race
Culture
CONTEXT
Family Background
Sociocultural Conditions
Current Experiences
Career Decisions and Life Planning
CORE
Class
CORE
Personal Attributes
Personal Characteristics
Personal Identity
Figure 2. Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Adapted from Jones and McEwen
(2002).
18
Sexual Identity Theory
As LGBT college students become more prevalent in today’s college and
universities, researchers are examining the identity formation and experiences of LGBT
students. Although, there are many theories on sexual identity theories, Vivienne Cass’
Sexual Identity theory (1979) is the first model to be published and most highly
referenced in regards to understanding sexual identity formation (Fassinger, 1998). Cass
uses a six-stage linear model to explain sexual identity development (Cass, 1984; Eliason,
1996; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; Fassinger, 1998). The six stages
consist of: identity confusion, identity comparison, identity tolerance, identity
acceptance, identity pride, and identity synthesis.
Stage one: Identity confusion. During this stage, the individual develops
feelings, thoughts, and behaviors associated with homosexuality. According to Eliason
(1996), “These feelings disrupt the self-identity as heterosexual and cause confusion” (p.
40). This state of confusion initiates a sense of exploration within the individual, which
leads the individual to the next stage.
Stage two: Identity comparison. As the individual explores their newly noticed
homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and feelings, the individual becomes self-alienated.
During this period of alienation, the individual becomes more aware of potential
similarities and differences within themselves and homosexuals. This stage is important
because their self discovery could lead to individuals wanting to continue or discontinue
their sexual exploration.
Stage three: Identity tolerance. Within this stage, the individual become more
committed to their homosexuality. The individual begins to seek homosexual friends and
19
associations. Individuals in this stage limit their disclosure of their sexuality identity to
heterosexual, which usual causes them to live double lives.
Stage four: Identity acceptance. The initial interactions with homosexuals and
their associations in stage three plays an instrumental role in stage four. If the initial
contacts were perceived well, then the individual will move rapidly to accepting their
new sexual identity. The individual begins to disclose their new identity to close friends
and family.
Stage five: Identity pride. Individuals in this stage will start develop a sense of
pride for their sexual identity. In addition, the individual develops a stern loyalty to the
homosexual group by devaluing and discrediting heterosexuals. This view towards
heterosexuals could be associated by societal views of devaluing homosexuals.
Individuals will begin to “dichotomize the world between heterosexual and homosexual”
to develop congruency (Eliason, 1996, p. 40).
Stage six: Identity synthesis. This stage marks the end of the sexual identity
configuration. The individual becomes congruent and fully accepts all aspects of their
sexual identity. This congruency represents the individual’s ability to view their
sexuality as one aspect of their total identity. During this process, the individual will
begin to merge their private and public life
After Cass’ sexual identity model was published, it initiated other researchers to
examine sexual identity. Many of the earlier sexual identity models and studies use small
or bias sampling to conceptualize sexual identity (Fassinger, 1998). Therefore, many
theories were based on the experiences of gay men; which were later generalized to
include women. Many of today’s literature expose the discrepancies within these sexual
20
identity models; while examining the different experiences between the subgroups within
the LGBT community. According to Fassinger, “Although there has been criticism of
Cass’ model, it familiarity to many and the brevity of its assessments instruments suggest
that it will remain widely used within Student Affairs as a model for understand LGB
students” (p. 15).
Racial Identity: Cross’ Nigrescence Theory
The study of nigrescence evolved around the 1960s, when African American
psychologists tried to formulate and map an understanding to how identity transformation
occurred within African Americans during Black social movement. The term
nigrescense is derived from the French word meaning “the process of becoming black”
(Cross, 1991, p.147). William E. Cross is the Black American psychologist that
formulated the nigrescence model which identifies the stages African Americas move
through to develop identity. The nigrescence theory has played a major part in
understanding African American identity over the last three decades, and can has been
used as the foundation of other Black identity theoretical explications and empirical
studies in the field (Worrell, Cross & Vandiver, 2001). Cross (1991) based the
nigrescense theory on clinical observations, case studies and participants observations.
His first Black identity model, “Negro-to Black Conversation Model,” used self-analysis
and participation observations to build the foundations for his nigrescence theory (p. xi).
In the 1970s, the nigrescence model encompasses five stages which Cross
believes African Americans transition from self-hatred to self-acceptance. As of 2001,
Cross has revised his nigrescence model and modified it to four stages. The four stages
included: Pre-encounter, Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization.
21
Stage 1: Pre-encounter. The pre-encounter stage represented the initial identity
which is in mostly referred to a period of assimilation (Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver,
2001). Cross believes that African American attempt to assimilate the customs and ways
of white Americans; while rejecting those belonging to African Americans. Also, this
sense of anti-Black within African Americans is believed to influence many to have a
sense of self-hatred.
Stage 2: Encounter. The encounter stage represents a period when African
Americans encounter an experience or situation that challenges their initial identity.
These experiences could be large-scale or small individual experiences (e.g. the
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King or racial profiling in a department store) that
could challenge the individual’s views of white Americans. In addition, an individual
does not have to negative experience during the encounter stage. For example, the
election of President Barak Obama could allow some African Americans to regain trust
in the African American community and challenge their initial self-hatred or anti-black
mentality.
Stage 3: Immersion-emersion. The immersion-emersion stage is the climax of
the identity transformation. During this stage, many African Americans have completely
immersed themselves in black culture; while rejecting anything associated with white
America. These individuals will adopt African American hairstyles, clothing, music, and
anything that will express their Black nationality. Also during this period of “intense
Black involvement,” many African Americans develop a sense of disdain towards white
Americans for being responsible for their miseducation and deception towards their
22
African and African American heritage and the ways of society(Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith,
Cokley, Cross, & Worrell, 2011).
Stage 4: Internalization. The internalization stage is the final stage of the
nigrescence where African Americans conceptualize their Blackness. During this stage
the African American develops a sense of “Black self-actualization” which allows them
to accept the positive aspects of their Black culture (Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith, Cokly,
Cross & Worrell, 2011). The individuals will begin to remove feelings of hatred and
guilt which were generated from the immersion-emersion stage. This period marks the
beginning of internalizing and self-healing.
LGBT Training Manuals for Colleges & Universities
Today, there are an abundance of resources and literature that aid institutions to
create LGBT programs, initiatives, and services. As LGBT student population increase
on many college campuses, institutions are seeking ways to create a safe learning and
living environments for these students. Despite for the demand for these resource, very
little to no resource or training manuals have been designed specifically for HBCUs.
According to Hothem and Keene (1998), “training guides or manuals should contain
sections addressing LGBT identity, homophobia, issues in the classroom,
campus/community resources, and a glossary of the language and symbols of the LGBT
community” (p. 367).
LGBT Identity
As mentioned previously in the literature, Vivian Cass is one of the most
reference theorists in regards to gay identity formation. Cass uses a six stage model to
express an individual’s transition to form their sexual identity.
23
Homophobia
The term homophobia can be defined as “as prejudice against individuals based
on non-heterosexual orientation, and is characterized as intense fear or hatred of those
who desire individuals of the same gender” (Wickens & Sandlin, 2010, p. 652).
Homophobia is one of the major issues LGBT students face on college campus.
Although, many institutions have increased their awareness and implementation of
services to create a holistic and safe campus environment, homophobia is still present on
many of today’s colleges and universities. Based on the findings of a 2010 national
survey, “despite inclusive policies and institutional commitments, the fear or experience
of customary and irrational prejudice remains a common problem for LGBT students and
members of the faculty and staff” (Cramer & Ford, 2011, p.4).
Issues in the Classroom
One of the leading issues regarding LGBT students in today’s college classroom
is the promotion of heterosexism. Heterosexism in many of today’s college classrooms
creates a learning environment that promotes heteronormativity. The term
heteronormativity is defined as the “presumes and privileges heterosexuality and
monitors ‘proper’ and accepted gender identities through regulation of sexual
arrangements” (Wilkens & Sandlin, 2010, p.653). Many colleges and universities
express heterosexuality through various facets of institutional policies and language. For
example, a professor may use language in a classroom that would assume that everyone
in the classroom is heterosexual. Therefore, many institutions have made tremendous
strides to train faculty on diversity issues and inclusion in today’s classroom.
24
Campus and Community Resources
There are an abundance of campus and community resources and services that
post secondary institutions provides for LGBT students. Based on the Advocate College
Guide for LGBT Students by Shane Windmeyer (2006), some of these major resources
offered at institutions include:

Student groups

Out students, faculty, and staff

LGBT resource centers/offices

LGBT housing
Glossary of LGBT Language and Symbols
Many of reference books regarding LGBT student, services, and programs contain
glossaries that explain language, symbols, and national holidays within the LGBT
community (e.g. rainbow flags, Gay Pride Month, and National Coming Out Day).
Summary
Although some HBCUs have made some advances in providing services for
LGBT, these institutions are substantially lagging behind other U.S institutions in
providing adequate support, services and programs for LGBT students.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this creative project is to craft a literary resource that HBCUs can
use to assist in creating programs and initiatives for LGBT students. There is very
limited to no research on the topic of LGBT students, services, programs, and initiatives
present at HBCUs. Most in-depth qualitative literature focuses primarily on
homosexuality within African American males attending HBCUs, but exclude lesbian,
bisexuals, and transgender students. In addition, HBCUs have made national headlines in
regards to their lack of abilities to proper handle LGBT concerns. Therefore, a training
manual would be very beneficial for implementing LGBT services, programs, and
initiatives at HBCUs. A training manual will provide a consortium of information to
educate HBCU administrators, faculty, staff, and students while providing them with
essential tools in creating a safe campus environment, inclusion, sensitivity among the
campus community, and an understanding of the sexual identity process of LBGT
students.
Methodology
The initial steps involved in this creative project consisted of an extensive review
of existing literature regarding HBCUs, identity development theories of LGBT students
of color, and LGBT training manuals and resources. Next, various institutions were
26
researched to gather information on successful programs, services, best practices, and
initiatives for LGBT students on college campuses. In addition, information was
gathered on several HBCUs that currently had form of services, programs, and
organizations available for LGBT students. Lastly, all the information was evaluated to
create training manual designed for the distinct campus climate and social cultures
associated with these institutions.
Design of the Project
The training manuals was created to assist HBCUs implement programs and
initiatives to aid in providing efficient services for LGBT students attending these
institutions. Because HBCUs range in types, sizes, funding, and cultures, it is imperative
to take a generalized approach for recommendations since each program or initiatives
may not be appropriate for every institution. This training manual provides an overview
of some of the best practices, successful programs, services, and initiatives at peer
institutions and modified to accommodate the distinct institutional cultures of HBCUs.
In addition, the manual will assist in informing HBCUs of the cultures, symbols, and
current issues regarding the LGBT community, especially related to students attending
HBCUs. The training manual consists of several sections that will include assessments,
supplemental information, and templates of programs, services and initiative that HBCUs
can implement at their institutions.
The first section will consist of an historical overview of LGBT issues prevalent
at HBCUs, as well as some of the most current programs offered at these types of
institutions. In addition, this section will also present a list of some of the most current
resource centers and student organizations present at HBCUs.
27
The second section will be dedicated to discussing LGBT student identity theory.
It will encompass Jones and McEwen’s Multiple Dimension Identity (2002) and Cass’
Queer Theory (1991). This section will help HBCUs understand the developmental
processes of LGBT students attending HBCUs. This will also give student affairs
professionals and faculty a better understanding of the various stages students transition
through as they develop their identity; while making recommendations that are based
primarily on the cultures associated with HBCUs.
The third section will be based on understanding homophobia and how to create a
safe campus for LGBT students. This section will define homophobia and how it affects
campus climate. This section also focuses on the various societal and cultural norms of
the African American community and the Black church influence campus culture and
homophobia on HBCUs. Recommendations are also made on how HBCUs can improve
and educate the relations between LGBT and African American community.
The fourth section will be based on Safe Zone training. This section will give
HBCUs all the information need to create safe zones and location on their campus. In
addition, this section will consist of a list of the various types of Safe Zone training.
Also, this section highlights how to find Safe Zone facilitators and topics that should be
discussed within the training sessions.
The fifth section will consist of information on how HBCUs can implement
student groups and organizations specifically for LGBT students and to assist in creating
gay-straight allies. This section will give HBCUs insight on the importance of student
organizations in regards campus safety and inclusion within the LGBT community.
28
Included in this section are recommendations on selecting an advisor, drafting
constitutions and by-laws, funding, and programs.
The sixth section will consist of a glossary of terms and symbols of the LGBT
community. This glossary will be very helpful in understanding the cultures and issues
associated with LGBT students.
Summary
The training manual will be a useful resource for HBCUs in becoming more
conscious of LGBT students. The fulfillment of its purpose is to ensure that these
institutions are providing exception programs and services for LGBT students while
creating a safe and inclusive campus for these students.
CHAPTER FOUR
CREATING A TRAINING MANUAL
Project Summary
For this creative project, I created a training manual for implementing LGBT
programs and initiatives for HBCUs. This project provides a broad spectrum of
recommendations and knowledge that can be altered to fit any HBCU. The concept of
this project is to provide a literary resource for HBCUs to assist in implementing
services, programs, and initiatives for LGBT students. The project provides the reader
with current trends within the LGBT community regarding, especially HBCUs, and
several recommendations for implementing programs, services, and initiatives.
Implementing a training manual gives students, faculty, and administrators the
opportunity to positively impact the LGBT and campus community.
The project consists of the following sections:

Section 1: Current State of LGBT Services and Issues at HBCUs, page 30.

Section 2: LGBT Development Theory, page 37.

Section 3: Understanding Homophobia, page 43.

Section 4: Safe Zone Training, page 46.

Section 5: Developing LGBT Student Organizations, page 51.

Section 6: Glossary of Terms, page 58.
30
SECTION ONE
Current State of LGBT Services and Issues at
HBCUs
For centuries, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been pioneers for
providing educational opportunities for African Americans and underrepresented
student populations. Since their early establishments in the late eighteen century, these
institutions have provided higher education opportunities to African Americans who
were initial denied access to higher education in the United States. Currently, these
institutions serve a plethora of students ranging in various ages, nationalities, religions,
race, social class, and sexuality.
Although several HBCUs pride themselves on providing access to marginalized student
population, many criticize these institutions for ignoring their LGBT students. HBCUs
have made national media headlines regarding how they address LGBT issues.

In 2002, a student was severely beating on the campus of Morehouse College.
Morehouse College is an all-male and private HBCU located in Atlanta, Georgia.
31
On November 4, 2002 a student, whose name is kept anonymous for protection,
sustained a fractured skull from being beaten by sophomore, Aaron Price, with a
baseball bat. The student, who was not wearing his glasses at the time, peered
into Price’s shower stall in an attempt to look for his roommate. In retaliation,
Price attacked the victim with a baseball bat while stating hate words geared
towards homosexuals and the ones that attending Morehouse College. When
this incident made national headlines, it revealed the suppressed homophobia at
Morehouse College. Many students during that time revealed that homophobia
was a growing issue at Morehouse College, and if the issues continued to be
unaddressed many threaten to leave the institution.

In 2007, Hampton University was accused of denying recognition to a gaystraight alliance student organization. Hampton University is a private college
located in the Virginia Peninsula. Students Promoting Equality, Action, and
Knowledge, SPEAK, is the gay-straight alliance that was continually denied
recognition in Hampton’s student organization charter process.
Hampton
University had a strict charter process which only charter new student
organizations every two years. SPEAK applied for recognition in 2004 and 2006
and were denied. Although the university denied the claims of discrimination, it
failed to recognize the importance of a gay-straight alliance organizations and
how it would increase inclusion and campus safety for LGBT students.

In 2009, Morehouse College made national headlines for implementing an
“Appropriate Attire Policy” which banned male students from wearing dresses,
32
make-up, high-heels, and purses. The dress code was implemented to regulate
the attire of five male students who were wearing female clothing on campus.
The university claimed that the student’s attire did not represent the institutions
idea of “Morehouse Men.” Although Morehouse claimed to have met with the
campus’ Safe Space before implementing, the policy, many students felt as if the
dress code violated student’s freedom of expression. Also, many criticize the
policy for its insensitivity to potential transgender students.

In 2012, a student and drum major of Florida A&M University (FAMU) were
beaten to death in an act of hazing after a FAMU and Bethune-Cookman
University football game. The 26 year old, Robert Champion, died participated in
a hazing ritual which was part of an initiation process into the university’s
marching Band.
Champion received severe blows to his body which caused
internal bleeding in his body that led his body into shock. Several months after
the crime, the parents of Champion revealed that Robert Champion was gay and
that the severity of his beaten was probably contributed to his sexuality. There
are still speculations on whether or not the beating was truly based on
Champion’s sexuality.
LGBT Services
LGBT services at some of today’s U.S colleges and Universities date back to the late
1960s; however, HBCUs have lagged substantially in the higher education community in
33
providing resources for LGBT students. Out of 104 recognized HBCUs, there is only one
institution that has an LGBT center, Bowie State University, which was recently
established in 2012.
There are only a handful of documented HBCUs that have
recognized student organizations and safe places designed for LGBT and straight-ally
students.
HBCUs with LGBT RESOURCE CENTERS
Bowie State University - LGBTIA Resource Center
HBCUs with STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS
Bennett College- Brides
Bowie State University - Eyes Wide Shut
Central State University- Glue
City College of New York- Straight and Gay Alliance
Cuyahoga Community College- Lambda Gay Straight Alliance
Dillard University- One People
Howard University- Blagosh
Johnson C. Smith University- LGBT Alliance
Medgar Evers College- In the Life
Morehouse College- Safe Space
Morgan State University- Rainbow Soul
Norfolk State University- LEGASI
34
North Carolina A&T State University- SWIM
Spelman College- Afrekete
South Carolina State University- Unity
University of District Columbia- Outlaw
Virginia State University- GLAD
West Virginia State University - SAGA
Issues
There is several issues LGBT students face that is similar at all institutions, and there are
several issues specifically at HBCUs

Homophobia. The term homophobia can be defined as an intense hatred or
dislike for individuals who desire to have sexual interest of individuals of the
same gender. Homophobia is a shared issue among all college and universities
in the United States and could be represented in students, faculty, and
administrators.
For example, a student may express his extreme dislike for a student on the sole
bases of his or her sexual preference may be perceived as being homophobic.

Institutional Homophobia. The term institutional homophobia can be given to a
college or university that expresses homophobia as an institution. This may be
35
very common at HBCUs, since many of these institutions were founded on
Christian principles.
For example, a college or university denying recognition of a LGBT student group
on claims that the nature of the organization is against the institution’s principles.

Hate Crimes. Hate crimes can be defined as any form of violence or crime where
someone’s sexuality was a motive for the act. Hate crimes can be found at many
colleges and universities across the United States, and a major issue regarding
campus safety for LGBT students.
For example, a student that is severely beaten outside his residence hall based
solely of his sexual orientation is considered a hate crime.

Heteronormality. The term heteronormality is defined as the idea or assumption
that heterosexuality is the “normal” sexual orientation shared by all people. This
is an issue that is shared at all types of institutions in the United States.
Heteronormality generally affects inclusion of LGBT students in classrooms,
curriculum, and policies implemented by a university.
For example, a professor that based his lecture discussion on the assumption that
everyone in the classroom is heterosexual may be exuding heteronomality.

LGBT Insensitivity.
Many institutions across the United States have been
accused of lacking sensitivity when dealing with LGBT issues. Sexual identity
development or transformation may be a very challenging time for many college
students; therefore, it is imperative that institutions train faculty, administrators,
and students on how to deal with LGBT issues.
LGBT insensitivity can be
36
expressed in the way conflicts are resolved, curricular formation, access in new
and old facilities, and policies that are being implemented by the institutions.
For example, an institution that fails to identify and create unisex or gender neutral
restrooms may be insensitivity to students who are transgender or in the transition
process of changing genders.
The importance of unisex restrooms is often
overlooked by many institutions. Many transgender students have experienced
extreme discomfort using restrooms of their new identifying gender due to stress
and fear associated with the potential reaction of others.
37
SECTION TWO
Understanding LGBT Identity Development
Identity development is one of the most monumental and vital part of an individual’s
development and overall well-being. For decades, researchers have explored the identity
development of college students, especially regarding LGBT students. Although, college
students matriculate through their college experience constantly challenging their
identity, students of color that identify within the LGBT community may experience a
more challenging process in finding one’s true identity. Many of these students may be
challenged on what part of their identity should focus more on which may lead many to
question, “should I focus more on being Black, or gay?” Also, many students may find it
difficult to religious and gay, “can I be a Christian, and still be gay?”
There are
assortments of various identity dimensions that may intersect with a student’s sexuality
that may influence their identity development.
It is important for students, faculty, and administrators to understand how multiple
dimensions intersect with student’s sexual identity to form one’s core identity; in
addition to understanding the theory associated with sexuality identity development.
38
One of the reference models and theories to understanding multiple dimensions of
identity and sexual identity in students is the McEwen & Jones Multiple Dimension of
Identity Model and Vivienne Cass’ Gay Theory.
Jones and McEwen’s Multiple Dimension of Identity Model
Susan R. Jones and Marylu K. McEwen’s Multiple Dimension Models use a unique
approach to understanding the multiple identities that intersect to develop one’s core
identity. Their model is one of the most referred models to understanding multiple
dimensions within individuals. The model is based on conical structure with varying radii
and height to represent the interactions and intersection of multiple identity
development within individuals. Each individual’s length and circumference is different
within the conical structure; therefore, increasing lengths and circumference represents a
greater complexity within an individual.
The length and circumference is heavily
influenced by factors such as: age, experiences, education, and reflection change. The
two dimensional cross section within the conical structure represents the development of
the individual at the particular time.
These dimensions intersect to display that
dimension cannot be understood from a singular dimension.
There are two parts of the model; the core and the intersection intersecting circles of
identity:
39

The core. The core is the center of the model, which represents the individual’s
core identity. This is believed to the personal characteristics and attributes the
individual values the most. The core is one of the most instrumental aspects of
the model because it represents the individual’s inner self. The other external
dimensions such as: gender, race, culture, and religions are connected to the core
of the individual.

The intersecting circles of identity.
The intersecting circles of identity
represent the various facets of identities within the individual (e.g. race, religion,
sexual orientation, and gender). The interactions between the various circles and
their proximity to the core determine the salience of the identity.
Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Adapted from Jones and McEwen (2002).
40
Vivienne Cass’ Sexual Identity Development Model
There are many theories on sexual identity development; however, Vivienne Cass’ Sexual
Identity theory (1979) is the first model to be published and most highly cited theory in
regards to understanding sexual identity formation. Many of today’s leading literature
regarding gay identity development references Cass’ sexual identity development model.
Cass uses a six-stage linear model to explain sexual identity development in individuals.
The six stages consist of: identity confusion, identity comparison, identity tolerance,
identity acceptance, identity pride, and identity synthesis:

Stage One: Identity Confusion. During this stage, the individual begin to
develop feelings, thoughts, and behaviors associated with homosexuality. This
state of confusion initiates a sense of exploration within the individual, which
leads the individual to the next stage.

Stage Two: Identity Comparison. As the individual explores their newly noticed
homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and feelings, the individual becomes selfalienated. During this period of alienation, the individual becomes more aware of
potential similarities and differences within themselves and homosexuals.
This
stage is very important and intricate stage within the developmental process,
because revelations revealed during this self exploration could either lead
individuals to further explore or discontinue their sexual identity.
41
APPLYING HBCUs
This is a very intricate stage for many individuals of color, especially
attending HBCUs. Some HBCUs have campus climates that are based on
cultural, societal, and religious norms associated with the African American
community. HBCUs should provide a welcoming and safe environment
during a student’s period of alienation to assist in this period of self
discovery. Unwelcoming and insensitive environments during this period of
self discovery may lead to future developmental issues.

Stage Three: Identity Tolerance. Within this stage, the individual become more
committed to their homosexuality. The individual begins to seek homosexual
friends and associations. Individuals in this stage limit their disclosure of their
sexuality identity to heterosexual, which usual causes them to live double lives.
APPLYING HBCUs
This is a highly sensitive stage for many individuals of color, especially
attending HBCUs. Most HBCUs have relatively small student populations,
with a large percentage of those students residing on campus. It is
important for students, faculty, and administrators to know the importance
of allowing students to disclose their information at their discretion. It is
normal for students to live two lifestyles as they try to discover their true
sexual orientation. This is an opportunity for HBCUs to provide assistance
and guidance for students seeking support during this time of exploration.
Forcing students to disclose their sexual orientation could lead to
psychological issues or institutional transfers

Stage Four: Identity Acceptance. The initial interactions with homosexuals and
their associations in stage three plays an instrumental role in stage four. If the
initial contacts were perceived well, then the individual will move rapidly to
accepting their new sexual identity. The individual begins to disclose their new
identity to close friends and family.
42

Stage Five: Identity Pride. Individuals in this stage will start develop a sense of
pride for their sexual identity. In addition, the individual develops a stern loyalty
to the homosexual group by devaluing and discrediting heterosexuals. This view
towards heterosexuals could be associated by societal views of devaluing
homosexuals

Stage Six: Identity Synthesis. This stage marks the end of the sexual identity
configuration. The individual becomes congruent and fully accepts all aspects of
their sexual identity. This congruency represents the individual’s ability to view
their sexuality as one aspect of their total identity.
During this process, the
individual will begin to merge their private and public life.
Summary
It is extremely important for students, faculty, and administrators at HBCUs to
understand the multiple dimensions within LGBT students, and how those intersecting
identities affect the sexual identity development of students.
HBCUs should
continuously strive to create a campus environment that fosters a safe and supportive
environment for these developmental processes to take place.
43
SECTION THREE
Homophobia and Campus Climate
The term homophobia can be defined as an intense hatred or dislike for individuals who
desire to have sexual interest towards individuals of the same biological sex. Over the
past decades, researchers have explored homophobia and its implications on society and
the LGBT community.
There are various ways individuals define and describe
homophobia. Some people perceive homophobia as any range of negative emotions or
attitudes towards individuals who identity with being homosexual. Others may define
homophobia as an intense fear of homosexuals.
Nevertheless, homophobia can be
displayed in a multitude of ways; which may create an assortment of issues for
individuals within the LGBT community, especially attending colleges and universities.
Many may agree that there is a link between homophobia and hate crimes in the United
States, especially on college campuses. Throughout the limited resources regarding
LGBT students and HBCUs, many highlight the various factors that contribute to a
campus climate that is unsupportive of LGBT students on the campus of HBCUs. These
factors include: negativity from the African American community and church:
44
African American Community Influence
It is commonly perceived that African Americans are one of the least accepting groups to
accept homosexuality within their friends and family. Since HBCUs are predominately
African American students, the negative ideology about homosexuality within the African
American community is perpetuated on the campuses of HBCUs.
Many students
struggle and even hide their sexuality to avoid being disowned family or alienated by
individuals on campus and in the community. Some students even fear losing social
standing at their universities if their sexuality is revealed. Since many of the student
organizations, fraternities and sororities are still heavily influenced by the African
American community, many students experience difficulties joining due to their sexual
orientation.
APPLYING HBCUs
HBCUs can play a major role in educating and creating dialogue about
homosexuality within the African American community. Since HBCUs have close
connections with African American students and constituents from the African
American community, these institutions can be pioneers for improving the
relationships between LGBT African Americans and the community. It is imperative
that HBCUs understand how the African American community influences campus
climate, and should work on creating programs that will create awareness to ensure
a safe and inclusive campus for LGBT students.
Black Church Influences
Many of today’s HBCUs were established by Black churches in the 19th and 20th century.
Since their existence, Black churches are continuously involved in HBCUs; which makes
Christianity still plays a major aspect at these institutions. Therefore, it is not surprising
45
that many of these institutions still have Christian undertones at both private and public
institutions.
Since homosexuality is generally not a lifestyle accepted by the Christian community,
many of those concepts are perpetuated at HBCUs. Because HBCUs were founded on
Christian principles and the predominately practiced religion at many HBCUs, LGBT
students may endure negative attitudes from students, faculty and administrators of the
Christian faith.
APPLYING HBCUs
Christianity will always be a cultural aspect of HBCUs; however, it is still the
institution’s duty to provide a safe and inclusive environment for LGBT
students. Although many of the students, faculty, and administrators are of
the Christian faith; HBCUs should encourage healthy dialogue between the
various constintuents of the university and religious community.
46
SECTION FOUR
Safe-Zone Training
Safe-Zone training is a program that is implemented by many colleges and universities
across the United States. Safe-Zone training gives many universities the opportunity to
train and educate students, faculty, and administrators on issues regarding LGBT
students; while giving them the resources to create safe spaces for all students in need of
support on a college campus.
Safe-Zone training is something that is very needed at HBCUs. At most college campus,
Safe Zone training is implemented by LGBT resource centers, peer-educator groups, or
other psycho-social departments within an institution. Since many HBCUs lack these
resources, it is imperative that HBCUs utilize the resources provided on campus to
organize these initiatives. Below are some recommendations for HBCUs to develop safezone trainings.
47
Finding a Facilitator(s)
Since HBCUs lack some of the resources that are found at other institutions; it is
imperative that HBCUs find a professional staff or faculty to execute the training session.
The person(s) should have a clear understanding of issues regarding LGBT students and
the community, especially dealing with the various factors and influences on the campus
of an HBCU. The person(s) does not have to be an expert in the field of LGBT relate, but
should have a passion for sharing knowledge about this sub-population of students.
Listed below are some great qualities of facilitators for Safe Zone Training:

Knowledgeable

Understanding

Advocate

Supportive

Patient
Student or student groups can act as peer-educators and assist in facilitating Safe-Zone
training sessions. It is also imperative that students are properly trained to facilitate in
these discussion and training, since many of the issues and topics highlighted in the
trainings may be sensitive for some individuals. A professional staff or faculty should
fully train students before they begin facilitating in a Safe-Zone training.
48
Types of Safe-Zone Trainings
There are several creative ways HBCUs can plan Safe-Zone training for the campus
community. Listed below are several suggestions of types of training HBCU can use to
better serve the campus community.

General Safe-Zone Training.
A general Safe-Zone training allows students,
faculty, staff, and administrators an opportunity to learn in a collective
environment about issues regarding LGBT issues. Having a general Safe-Zone
training showcases how all constituents of the campus community has a common
interest in learning about LGBT issues and how to create safe spaces of support
for all students.

Staff & Administration Safe-Zone Training. Staff & Administration Safe-Zone
Training gives these professionals an opportunity to gain an understanding about
LGBT issues and how it could possible relate to their areas within the university.
This is a great opportunity for these professionals to learn the skills needed to
provide support and create safe places for students to come and share their
thoughts and feelings. In addition, safe zone training geared towards staffs and
administrators can also improve the relationship with students, faculty, and local
community regarding LGBT sensitivity, access, and resources.

Faculty Safe-Zone Training. Faculty Safe-Zone Training allows faculty to gain
an understanding of LGBT issues regarding the classroom. Although, this SafeZone training will allow faculty an opportunity to learn about the challenges
these students face within a college community; but also gain insight on how
49
insensitivity within the classroom can affect LGBT students. This training should
strongly highlight LGBT sensitivity in a learning environment and using inclusive
language. For example, inclusive language would be refraining from dialogues
that could be a presumption that everyone in the classroom is heterosexual.
Faculty based training could also evaluate whether diversity, sexual identity, and
gender expressions are topics being highlighted in the curriculum at the
institutions.

Student Safe-Zone Training.
Student Safe-Zone Training an excellent
opportunity for students and student organizations to understanding issues
regarding LGBT issues. This training is gears specifically for students and how
students can become allies to the LGBT community. These training could assist in
improving campus climate; as well as, provide knowledge and a healthy dialogue
about this often marginalized community.

LGBT Specific Safe-Zone Training. LGBT Specific Safe-Zone Training provides
training for the specific communities within the LGBT community. This gives the
university the opportunity to focus on the issues specifics to certain groups within
the LGBT community.
Suggested Training Topics

LGBT issues Campus/National/Global

LGBT in the African American Community

LGBT in the Black Church
50

Heternormativity

Homophobia

Hate Crimes

Discrimination in Student Organizations

Becoming Straight Allies

Creating Safe Spaces

HIV/AIDS Awareness
51
SECTION FIVE
Student Organizations
Student organizations are a very important aspect of college life; and contribute to cocurricular learning and development for many college students. Although, many HBCUs
have a plethora of student organizations, there are a very limited number of institutions
that have student organizations geared for LGBT students and developing straight ally.
LGBT student organizations can serve various purposes on the campuses of HBCUs.
These organizations can utilized as support, educational, social, informative, and social
tools to help being the LGBT community, as well as contributing to creating straight
allies.
The term straight allies are given to individuals who identity with being
heterosexual and one who takes a special interest in providing a safe and inclusive
environment for individuals of the LGBT community. Educating and creating straight
allies for a college campus contributes substantially to well-being and safety of LGBT
students at HBCUs
52
Listed below are several recommendations and suggestions for forming LGBT student
organizations on the campus of HBCUS
Student vs. Institution formed Student Organizations
Amongst the thousands of LGBT student organizations on the campus of colleges and
universities across the United States, many of these organizations were formed by
students or the institutions. In both cases, student or the institutions saw an important
need for establishing an organization to educate, support, and build community for the
LGBT and campus community.

Student Formed Organizations. A large percentage of LGBT organizations were
established by students, especially the ones established at HBCUs.
Student
formed organizations are established by a select group of students who has
determined that there is an important need to provide a supportive outlet for
students in the LGBT community. This is a great opportunity for students to
design an organization that fits the need and culture of the institution. Also,
allowing students to form their own organizations gives these students a sense of
ownership and empowerment; in addition to a sense of feeling of inclusion at the
institution.
53
APPLYING HBCUs
It is very important that HBCUs acknowledge and respect the establishment
of LGBT organizations by students. Many institutions have certain
requirements for student organizations in order to gain recognition on a
college campus; therefore, decisions on whether to grant recognition to
LGBT organizations should not be based on biasness of the student
organization recognition committee. It is imperative that the institutions
understand the importance for acknowledging an LGBT student
organizations if their currently not one available for students.

Institutional formed. There are several institutions that have LGBT student
organizations that are establish by the institution. Institutions may organize
these student groups as a way to acknowledge the need for a support LGBT.
Many of the LGBT student groups formed by the institutions are also funded by
the institutions; unlike some student groups at other institutions which are nonfunded. In addition, in many cases these type of LGBT student groups also has a
professional staff person that advises this student group.
Finding an Advisor
For many institutions, an active advisor is required for student organizations to gain
official recognition by the institutions. Student organizations that are not provided an
advisor by the institutions should really take the time to find the appropriate advisor at
HBCUs. Listed below are some qualities an advisor should possess for advising an LGBT
student organization.

Awareness
54

Advocacy

Dependable

Resourceful

Supportive

Active
Student organizations may vary in organizational culture, style, size, and autonomy;
which may requires a different advising style by the advisor.
Constitutions & By-Laws
Many student organizations have constitutions and by-laws to assist in maintaining
order and outline the roles and responsibilities of officers within the organization. Many
institutions require student organizations to provide copies of their constitutions and bylaws and gain official recognition from the university.
Constitution
A student organization’s constitution is a document that provides the mission, structures,
and rules or the organization. An organization’s constitution should be a very strong
document that upholds the integrity of the organizations as leadership transitions each
year.
Some of the suggested items that should be included in a constitution:
1. Formal Name of the Organization
55
2. Purpose of the Organization
3. Membership Qualifications
4. Organization Officer Positions
a. Duties
b. Officer Election Qualifications
c. Sub-Committees
5. Voting
6. Meetings
7. Quorum
8. Advisor
9. Organization Funding
10. Amends to the Constitution
11. Ratifications
By-Laws
The by-laws of a student organization is a document that provides an outline of the
procedures for operating the organizations. Generally by-laws include information
about:

Membership (e.g. rights, expulsion, and resignation)

Responsibilities of Officers

Order of Business

Agenda of Meetings
56

Formation of Special Committees

Other special policies our procedures that may be specific to the organization
Funding
Some LGBT organizations are either funded through budgets allocated by the university
or other through campus organizations; such as the Student Government Association.
Depending on the institution, funding may be based on a request basis by the student
organization to a department within student affairs that deals with student life, activities,
or organizations. It is imperative that by whatever means an organization is funded, it
should take time to appropriately budget each year
Programs
LGBT organizations organize a plethora of programs on their respective campuses.
These programs range from social, informative, educational, and service; while providing
a multitude of co-curricular opportunities for LGBT students and straight allies. Listed
below are some common programs organized by LGBT student organizations

Drag Shows

Free HIV testing

National Coming Out Day Celebrations

Pride Month of Events

LGBT Discussion Panels

Safe Zone Student Training
57

Lavender Graduation

Gay Prom

Any additional programs that may be suitable or needed for the campus
community
58
SECTION SIX
Glossary of Terms
Ally. An ally is a referred to a person that takes a special interest in advocating for LGBT
rights.
Bisexual. An umbrella term associated for individuals who identify with having sexually
attractions to individuals of the male and female biological gender.
Closeted. A term associated with individuals who refuse to reveal their sexual
orientation.
Coming Out. A term most commonly associated with a process of an individual sharing
their sexuality openly with family, friends, or peers.
Cross dresser. Is a term associated with individuals who wear clothing of the opposite
biological sex.
59
Down Low. A term associated within the African American community as a lifestyle of
men who secretly haves sexual encounters with other men, while portraying an actively
heterosexual lifestyle. In many cases, these individuals maintain relationships with
women while having sexual encounters with other men and do not identify as being
homosexual or bisexual.
Drag Queen. A drag queen is an individual who enjoys wearing women’s clothing and
portraying a woman in performance. These individuals do not identify as transgender,
since they do not desire to be a woman.
Gay. An umbrella term associated for males who identify as having sexual attractions to
other males.
Gender queer. A term given to individuals who do not identify as being male or female.
Homophobia. An intense hatred or dislike for individuals who desire to have sexual
interest of individuals of the same gender.
Heteronormativity. An ideology or assumption that heterosexuality is the “normal”
sexual orientation shared by all people.
60
Lesbian. An umbrella term given to females who identify as having sexual attraction to
other females.
Transgender. An umbrella term associated with individuals who identify as being of the
opposite biological gender.
Straight-Ally. A person who identifies as being heterosexual, but advocates for LGBT
rights.
61
REFERENCES
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of
multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the
construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48,
1-22. doi: 10.1353 /csd.2007.0000
Bond, H. M. (1976). Education for freedom: A history of Lincoln University,
Pennsylvania. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Bonner, F. (2001). Addressing gender issues in the historically Black college and
university community: A challenge and call to action. The Journal of Negro
Education, 70(3), 176-191. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211209
Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual Identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. The
Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143-167. Retrieved from
http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/ed778 /arno/ed77825.pdf
Challenor, H. S. (2002). African studies at historically Black colleges and universities.
African Issues, 30(2), 24-29. Retrieved from http://jstor.org/stable/1535085
Cox, L. (1958). The promise of land for freedmen. The Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, 45, 413-440. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1889319
Cramer, E. P., & Fords, C. H. (2011). Gay rights on campus, circa 2011. Academe, 97(5),
38-41. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN
=EJ943995&site=ehost-live
62
Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Curtin, M. A., & Gasman, M. (2003). Historically Black colleges MBA programs:
Prestige, ranking, and meaning of success. Journal of Education for Business,
79(2), 79-84. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN
=12203459&site=ehost-live
Davis, J. W. (1933). The Negro land-grant college. The Journal of Negro Education,
2(3), 312-328. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2292202
Davis, M. C., III., & Brown, J. E. (2001). The historically Black college as social
contract, social capital, and social equalizer. Peabody Journal of Education, 76,
31-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493004
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons: beyond a
“minoritizing” view. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(3), 31-58. Retrieved from
http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/ed778/arno/ed77854.pdf
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: International University
Press.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L, D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
63
Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity in student development
theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
students college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators, (pp. 13-23).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gasman, M. (2009). Historically Black colleges and universities in a time of economic
crisis. Academe, 95(6), 26-28. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=aph&AN=45447253&site=ehost-live
Gasman, M., Baez, B., Drezner, N. D., Sedgwick, K.V., Tudico, C., & Schmid, J. M.
(2007). Historically Black colleges and universities: Recent trends. Academe,
93(1), 69-78. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN
=23854345&site=ehost-live
Gasman, M., & Nelson, Bowman, N., III. (2011). How to paint a better portrait of
HBCUs. Academe, 97(3), 24-27. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=aph&AN=61078113&site=ehost-live
Hothem, K. B., & Keene, C. D. (1998). Creating a safe zone project for a small private
college: How hate galvanized a community. In R. L. Sano (Ed.), Working with
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty
and administrators (pp. 363-369). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different
types of institutions. Lanham. MD: University Press of America.
64
Jones, J. H., & Hancock, C. R. (2005). Brown v. Board of Education at 50: Where are we
now? The Negro Educational Review, 56(1), 99-98. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com
/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ768451&site=ehost-live
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of
identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 405-414. Retrieved from
http://
emergentrecovery.com/uploads/Conceptual_Model_of_Multiple_Dimensions_of_
Identity.pdf
Mungin, Lateef. (2009). “All-male college cracks down on cross-dressing.” CNN.
Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-17/us/college.dress.code_1_dressmorehouse-college-all-male-college?_s=PM:US
Patton, L. D. (2011). Perceptions on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment
among African American gay and bisexual men at one historically Black college.
Journal of College Student Development, 52, 77-100.
Porter, J. D. (1998). Leadership development for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
college students. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed)., Working with lesbian, gay , bisexual, and
transgender student college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators
(pp. 307-319). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Redd, K. E. (1998). Historically Black colleges and universities: Making a comeback. In
J. P. Merisotis & C. T. O’Brien (Eds.), Minority-serving institutions: Distinct
purposes, common goals (pp. 33-43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
65
Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple
oppressions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 174-180. Retrieved from
http://gse.buffalo.edu/gsefiles/documents/The%20Complexities
%20of%20Diversity-%20Exploring%20Multiple%20Oppression
s%20Reynolds,%20Pope%20(%201991).pdf
Roebuck, J. B., & Murty, K. S. (1993). Historically Black colleges and universities:
Their place in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sims, S. J. (1994). Diversifying historically Black colleges and universities: A new higher
education paradigm. Westport: CT: Greenwood.
Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of
color: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 42-60.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ933292&sit
e=ehost-live
Thompson, D. C. (1976). Private Black colleges at the crossroads. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Trickett, E. J., Watts, R. J., & Birman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives
on people in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vandiver, J. B., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Worrel, F. C.
(2001). Cross’s nigresence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(3), 174-200. Retrieved from
http://www.personal .psu.edu/bjv3/page2/assets/BJVetalJMCD01.pdf
66
Wall. V., & Washington. J. (1991). Understanding gay and lesbian students of color. In
N. J. Evans & V. A. Walls (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gay, lesbians, and bisexuals
on campus (pp. 67-78). Alexandra, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Washington, J. & Wall, V. A. (2006). African-American gay men: Another Challenge for
the Academy. In M. Cuyjet & Associates (Eds.), African American Men in
College (pp. 174-188). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wicken, C. M., & Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of
education: A culture of fear, a culture of silence. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 23, 651-670. doi: 10.1080/09518390903551035
Windmeyer, S. H. (2006). the Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students. Boston, MA:
Alyson Publications.
Worrell, F.C., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current
status and challenges for the future. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 29, 201-213. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN
=EJ632149&site=ehost-live
Young, A. (2011). Gay student: The latest outreach target at many colleges. Journal of
College Admission, 22, 39-40. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=eric&AN=EJ918460&site=ehost-live
67
Zirkel, S., & Cantor, N. (2004). 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education: The promise
and challenges of multicultural education. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 1-15.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12205914&sit
e=ehost-live